Socio-economicImpact Assessment of theTissue Culture Banana Industry in Keny by AfricaHarvest Biotech foundation

Socio-economic Impact Assessment of the Tissue Culture Banana Industry in Kenya Dr Shabd S. Acharya and Dr Mary G. Alton Mackey

www.africaharvest.org i

TC_banana_for Web.indd 1

8/21/2008 9:29:13 PM

Gikonyo, a TC banana farmer displaying his banana fruit

This Report was compiled by Dr Shabd S. Acharya and Dr Mary G. Alton Mackey as part of an Africa Harvest Board of Directors-commissioned consultancy. Dr Shabd S. Acharya Agricultural Economist: B.Sc. (Ag), M.Sc. (Ag), Ph.D. (Agricultural Economics); Former Chairman, Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, Government of India; Former Member, SPMS, Science Council of CGIAR; Former Professor, State Agricultural University; Former Director, Institute of Development Studies, Jaipur (IDSJ) (India); and Currently Honorary Professor, IDSJ (India). Dr Mary G. Alton Mackey Health, Nutrition, Evaluation and Development Consultant: B.H.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D. Currently, President of Alton Mackey and Associates, Toronto, Canada.

Cover: (L) An Africa Harvest farmer shows off TC bananas that weigh 40â&#x20AC;&#x201C;45 kg, which is about 2â&#x20AC;&#x201C;3 times the weight of non-TC bananas. (R) Farmers prepare to transport their TC bananas to the market after weighing, grading and packaging them in crates provided by Africa Harvest. ii

Socio-economic impact assessment of the tissue culture banana industry in Kenya

TC_banana_for Web.indd 2

8/21/2008 9:29:14 PM

Socio-economic Impact Assessment of the Tissue Culture Banana Industry in Kenya Dr Shabd S. Acharya and Dr Mary G. Alton Mackey

www.africaharvest.org Africa Harvest Biotech Foundation International (AHBFI) Nairobi â&#x20AC;˘ Johannesburg â&#x20AC;˘ Washington DC

TC_banana_for Web.indd 3

8/21/2008 9:29:14 PM

Citation: Africa Harvest Biotech Foundation International (AHBFI). Socio-economic impact assessment of the tissue culture banana industry in Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya; Johannesburg, South Africa; Washington DC, USA. 40 pp. All information in this booklet may be quoted or reproduced, provided the source is properly acknowledged, as cited above. ÂŠ 2008 Africa Harvest ISBN 978-0-620-41753-2

For further information about Africa Harvest or additional copies of this publication, contact Africa Harvest at: NAIROBI (HQ) 3rd Floor, Whitefield Place, School Lane, Westlands PO Box 642 Village Market 00621 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: + 254 20 444 1113 Fax: + 254 20 444 1121 Email: kenya@africaharvest.org

JOHANNESBURG Fernridge Office Park 5 Hunter Street, Randburg PO Box 3655 Pinegowrie 2123 Gauteng, South Africa Tel: + 27 11 781 4447 Fax: + 27 11 886 0152 Email: southafrica@africaharvest.org

WASHINGTON DC Blake Building Farragut Square 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 1012 Washington DC 20036, USA Tel: +1 202 828 1215 Fax: +1 202 857 9799 E-mail: usa@africaharvest.org

Or visit the Africa Harvest website: www.africaharvest.org

Editing and design: BluePencil Infodesign, Hyderabad, India â&#x20AC;˘ www.bluepencil.in

TC_banana_for Web.indd 4

8/21/2008 9:29:14 PM

Contents

TC_banana_for Web.indd 5

Summary

Context

Scope and specific objective of the study

Overview of banana sector in Kenya

Superiority of TC banana

Economic and social impact of TC banana projects of Africa Harvest The package Economic impact Social impact Gender dimensions of impact Technical impact

9 9 10 10 11 12

Institutional capacity of Africa Harvest Africa Harvest’s ‘whole value chain’ implementation strategy Up-scaling the adoption of TC bananas

13 14 16

Projections of TC banana area and production

Demand for TC banana plantlets

Projections of TC banana growers

Recommendations Government of Kenya Africa Harvest Research

21 21 23 23

Appendices Appendix 1. Terms of Reference Appendix 2. Acronyms Appendix 3. Documents reviewed and references Appendix 4. Persons/institutions contacted/interviewed Appendix 5. Bios of Reviewers

25 29 30 33 35

8/21/2008 9:29:14 PM

TC_banana_for Web.indd 6

8/21/2008 9:29:14 PM

Summary Context Nearly 80% of Kenya’s population lives in rural areas and depends mainly on the agricultural sector for its livelihood. More than half of the country’s 40 million people live under US$1 per day and are classified as poor and food insecure. Poverty is more pronounced in the rural than in the urban areas, with over 85% of Kenya’s poor living in the rural areas, and mainly engaging in farming activities. Agricultural growth is therefore critical to Kenya’s overall development, including the achievement of the goals of reducing poverty and malnutrition and of making the country a hunger-free nation. The agricultural sector in Kenya directly contributes 26% to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and, in addition, indirectly contributes 27% through linkages with manufacturing, marketing and service sectors. Further, this sector employs approximately 75% of the Kenyan workforce.

ment of small landholders. The crop is predominantly grown by small-scale farmers, and the average banana cultivation area is 0.21 hectares, which is nearly 10% of the total farm area. Besides being a staple food for the rural as well as the urban populations, banana is an important source of income for smallscale subsistence farmers. The continuous availability of harvestable bunches from a banana stool contributes to the year-round food and income security of banana growers. The fruit is nutritious and a rich source of carbohydrates (22%), fiber (7%) minerals (calcium, phosphorus and iron) and vitamins (A, B and C). Banana contributes around 25% of the total calorie intake of Kenya’s consumers.

The crop is susceptible to panama disease, sigatoka virus, weevils and nematodes. Infestation of these pests and diseases, coupled with traditional agronomic practices led to decline in banana productivity. Traditional propagation of banana through The Kenyan govbanana suckers as ernment launched planting material was a new strategy in instrumental in the 2004, of revitalizing spread of pests and agriculture within diseases, which re1 ten years . It is a duced banana yields welcome initiative up to even 90%2. for achieving the Between 1992 and millennium devel1994, banana yields opment goals. The in Kenya reportedly strategy document declined from an avis comprehensive erage of 12.8 tonnes [L to R] Africa Harvest CEO Dr Florence Wambugu with Akinwumi Adesina, and encompasses Interim Vice President, Rockefeller Foundation and Anthony Bugg-Levine, Former to 9.9 tonnes per all possible actions Director, TechnoServe hectare. As a consefor making Kenya’s quence, the production declined from 986 thousand agricultural sector a vibrant sector of the country’s tonnes in 1992 to 489 thousand tonnes in 1996. economy. In the context of tackling the problem of The Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), with rural poverty, malnutrition and hunger, several agits experience of using tissue culture (TC) to propagate ricultural enterprises need careful and concerted improved planting material for potato, sugarcane, casattention of planners and development functionarsava and citrus fruits since the late 1980s, also used it ies, of which banana cultivation is one of the most for banana. By the middle of the 1990s, KARI’s Thika important. centre was convinced of the potential of TC in reversing In Kenya, banana is an important horticultural crop the decline in and enhancing the banana production. in terms of its present and potential contribution to KARI, in partnership with International Service for the food and nutritional security and income enhanceAcquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), im-

1. Ministry of Agriculture, 2004

2. Qaim, 1999

TC_banana_for Web.indd 1

8/21/2008 9:29:15 PM

plemented a project titled ‘Banana Biotechnology to Benefit Small Scale Banana Producers in Kenya’, with financial support from the Rockefeller Foundation (RF) and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Phase I of the project, which lasted from 1997 to 1999, evaluated the feasibility and appropriateness of the TC technology within the current farming practices of small-scale farmers. The second phase of the project, from 2000 to 2003, covered evolution of a sustainable system of production, distribution and utilization of TC-derived bananas on a pilot scale. The pilot activities in the project demonstrated the suitability and adaptability of the TC technology and considerably increased the demand for TC plantlets. The Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT) and two private companies—Genetic Technologies Limited (GTL) and Aberdare Technologies Limited (ATL)—are currently producing and supplying TC plantlets in the country. Beginning in 2003, Africa Harvest has been implementing two TC banana projects in Kenya’s Central and Eastern provinces, which are both important banana-growing regions. The first project was ‘Developing Pro-poor TC Banana Industry in Kenya’, which was funded by RF. The objective of the project was to remove bottlenecks to project expansion and create long-term sustainability in projects previously funded by RF and IDRC. Africa Harvest and TechnoServe jointly implemented this project. The second project implemented by Africa Harvest was ‘Chura Tissue Culture Banana Project’, funded by DuPont (and its subsidiary, Pioneer Hi-Bred). The objective of this project was to increase crop yields and incomes of banana growers in a densely populated area through TC technology and provide an institutional framework to support the production program. Africa Harvest used the ‘whole value chain’ approach while at the same time emphasizing on-farm entrepreneurship development. The strategic activities were

baseline studies, awareness creation, organization of farmers’ groups, technology transfer, training, establishment of plantlet and input distribution systems, establishment of a financing system, access to subsidies, and market development.

Scope and specific objective of the study The study’s major objective study was socio-economic impact assessment of TC banana in Kenya. Specifically, it attempted to chronicle the achievements of various TC banana projects against their objectives; to assess the economical and social impact of TC banana cultivation; the lessons learnt from implementation of various TC banana projects, to explore the possible scaling up of TC banana area and production; and to suggest infrastructure and human resource needs for sustaining and accelerating the growth of the banana sector in the country. The study also reviewed the contributions of various stakeholders and assessed the effectiveness of the ‘whole value chain’ approach adopted by Africa Harvest. The methodology adopted for the study consisted of a desk review of several documents, reports and research papers; focused group discussions with different stakeholders; field visits to banana farms, hardening nurseries, village and town markets, and supermarkets; discussions with farmers, banana graders, farmers’ group leaders, scientists of KARI, JKUAT, GTL and ATL, district agriculture officers of the Ministry of Agriculture, and Chairman, Horticulture Crops Development Authority (HCDA). The methodology also involved discussions with Africa Harvest’s CEO, scientists and field staff; this was was supplemented by the information from Africa Harvest and other stakeholders obtained through a specifically prepared questionnaire.

Value Addition; bottling of banana alchoholic beverages creating new markets for TC bananas 2

Socio-economic impact assessment of the tissue culture banana industry in Kenya

TC_banana_for Web.indd 2

8/21/2008 9:29:17 PM

Overview of banana sector in Kenya Banana is a nutritionally rich fruit. Ripe banana is forest products. However, on an average, Kenya’s a good source of vitamin A and contains medium farmers derive 37% of their income from non-farm acquantities of vitamin B and minerals like phosphotivities, not by choice but by compulsion. Agricultural rus, iron and potash. Ripe banana also contains sugdevelopment in Kenya thus holds the key for reducing ars—sucrose, fructose and glucose. It is, therefore, poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition. The banana an instant energy booster. Banana contains a type crop has emerged as a major income earner and a food of protein called tryptophan, which the body conitem in almost all the seven rural provinces of Kenya. verts into serotonin that helps us to relax. Though It is used for cooking, including preparing desserts. It the protein content of banana is low, it contains an has replaced citrus in the Rift Valley province and cofessential amino acid ‘lysine’, which makes banana fee in the Central province, mainly due to the proban excellent complement in maize-based diets. The lems of citrus greening and coffee marketing. There are fruit is rich in potassium yet low in salt, making it two types of bananas the dessert and the cooking vasuitable to control blood rieties. Both are grown pressure. The high fiber conin Kenya. The cultivars/ tent of banana helps to revarieties of banana— store normal bowel action. are grown in differBanana neutralizes hyper ent provinces/regions acidity and reduces irritaof the country (Table tion by coating the lining of 1.0). The most promithe stomach. Being high in nent dessert varieties iron, banana stimulates the commonly grown in production of hemoglobin Kenya are Gros Michel in the blood and thus helps and Apple Banana. The prevent anemia. Compared agronomic practices to the apple, the banana are the same for both is reported to contain four types. The main varietimes the protein, twice as ties of banana comEsther Gachugu, one of the early TC banana adopters explains how, much carbohydrates, thrice monly grown in Kenya by adopting the “new” banana technology, she has been able to start the phosphorus and five are Giant and Cavendother income-generating activities on her farm. times as much vitamin A and ish, Bokoboko, Shale, iron. It is in this context that Kisukari, Uganda Green, ‘a banana a day’ is considered as a natural remedy Sweet Banana, Gros Michel, Lacatan, Valery, Somali for many human ailments. The rich nutritive value of Shuttle, Robust, William Hybrid, Golden Beauty, Pisbanana can be judged from its composition. ang Paz, Muraru, Grande Naine, and Apple Banana. Nearly 52% of Kenya’s people are poor and food insecure, and most of them live in the rural areas and derive their livelihoods from crop, livestock, fish and

Banana cultivation occupies 7.4% of the gross cropped area, but when it comes to the area under fruit cultivation, it occupies 55%. However banana

Table 1.0. Distribution of banana area and production (2004) Province Central Coast Eastern Western Nyanza Rift Valley Nairobi N/Eastern Total

Area (ha) 15,520 7,124 9,238 11,753 34,401 2,861 54 422 81,673

Production (tonnes) 164,171 54,237 88,442 146,036 532,886 44,291 354 5721 1,036,138

Average yield (tonnes per ha) 10.6 7.6 9.3 12.4 15.5 15.5 6.6 13.6 12.7

Area share (%) 19.0 8.7 11.7 14.4 42.1 3.5 0.1 0.5 100.0

Production share (%) 15.8 5.2 8.5 14.1 51.5 4.3 * 0.6 100.0

Source: Provincial Reports, Ministry of Agriculture 2003/04, quoted in Ministry of Agriculture (2005). * – Less than 0.05%.

TC_banana_for Web.indd 3

8/21/2008 9:29:19 PM

acreage and production experienced a major setback in the mid-1990s, mainly due to high incidence of diseases and non-availability of disease-free planting material. The decline was reversed through various initiatives by KARI, JKUAT, ISAAA, and Africa Harvest Biotech Foundation International. Through provision of improved TC Banana planting material, both acreage and production of banana went up (Table 1.1). The average size of banana holdings in Kenya reported in the literature is 0.32 hectares, but our estimate is that it is 0.21 hectares. There are 388,920 farmers engaged in banana cultivation in Kenya. Of the 81,673 hectares under the crop, 44.5% is with small farm households (0.12 hectares), 39% with medium-scale farmers (average 0.45 hectares) and only 16.5% with large-scale farmers (average 1.98 hectares). Another important fact about banana production is that holdings of less than 0.5 hectares contribute 83.5% of banana production in Kenya (Table 1.2). Of the total banana produced in Kenya, nearly 60% is the cooking variety. The farmers retain around 24% for family consumption and sell the remaining 76%. The average consumption of banana per capita per day is estimated at 300 gm in bananagrower families and 60 gm by the rest of the population. The consumption of cooking banana in urban households has increased at a rate of 20% per year between 1995 and 2003. The income elasticity of demand for banana is positive (0.75) and high. In the total staple food basket of an average Kenyan (maize, wheat, rice and cooking banana), cooking banana accounts for as much as 11.4%. The demand for banana is price elastic. Currently, two estimates of the marketed surplusoutput (MS-O) ratio for banana in Kenya are available. The MS-O ratio for banana in Kenya is 76%3, thereby indicating that 24% of the banana output is retained by the farmers for family consumption4. According to the Tegemeo Institute Working Paper, the marketed surplus is only 44% of the banana out-

3. Qaim, 1999 4. The other estimate is given by Tschirley, Muendo and Weber, 2004

Table 1.1. Banana: area, production and yield in Kenya (1992â&#x2C6;&#x2019;2004) Year

Area (ha)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

76,917 79,591 49,575 44,434 45,269 75,131 75,502 75,286 74,308 77,576 78,154 79,598 81,673

Production (tonnes) 985,982 817,508 489,537 445,733 500,627 1,0575,86 1,128,297 1,097,673 1,027,768 1,084,312 1,073,001 1,019,377 1,036,138

Yield (tonnes per ha) 12.8 10.3 9.9 10.0 11.1 14.1 14.9 14.6 13.8 14.0 13.7 12.8 12.7

Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Communication dated 14th November 2005 to Africa Harvest (last column computed by authors).

put. This appears to be an underestimation of the MS-O ratio. We have used both the MS-O ratios to estimate per capita consumption among bananagrowing families. Considering that the MS-O ratio is 0.76, the marketed surplus of banana is estimated at 790,000 tonnes. The remaining 250,000 tonnes are retained by banana growers for their own family consumption. Accordingly, the per grower family consumption of banana per year is estimated as 643 kg (assuming that there are 388,920 banana grower families). This estimate implies that banana-growing families consume 1.76 kg bananas per day per family and 0.3 kg per day per capita (assuming an average family size of 6 members) (Table 1.3). These estimates are plausible and consistent with overall availability and consumption of banana in Kenya. The marketing system is not only complex but also inefficient (Figure 1.1). In banana marketing, transportation is a major cost because it is a bulk commodity and requires careful handling owing to its perishability (Table 1.4). The price-spread analysis of banana marketing in Kenya has revealed that the price received by the farmer for his crop is only 36% of the price paid by the consumer. The margin that goes to assemblers,

Table 1.2. Structure of banana farming in Kenya Particulars Range of banana holding (ha) Average holding (ha) Share in farm numbers (%) Number of banana farms (No.) Banana area (ha) Share in banana area (%)

Small farms Less than 0.2 0.12 79.60 309,580 37,200 44.5

Medium farms 0.2 to 0.5 0.45 18.60 72,340 32,595 39.0

Large farms More than 0.5 1.98 1.80 7,000 13,878 16.5

Total/Overall â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 0.21 100.00 388,920 83,673 100.0

Socio-economic impact assessment of the tissue culture banana industry in Kenya

TC_banana_for Web.indd 4

8/21/2008 9:29:20 PM

Table 1.3. Marketed surplus and per capita consumption of banana in Kenya Particulars Total production (000’ tonnes)

MS-O ratio (0.44) 1,040

MS-O ratio (0.76) 1,040

458 582

790 250

2,280 1,496

979 643

6.2 4.1

2.68 1.76

1.0 0.7

0.4 0.3

Marketed surplus (000’ tonnes) Family consumption by banana growers (000’ tonnes) Per family consumption by banana-growing families (A) if 255,230 families (kg) (B) if 388,920 families (kg) Per family per day consumption by banana-growing families A (kg) B (kg) Per capita per day consumption by banana-growing families A (kg) B (kg) MS-O Ratio = Marketed Surplus–Output Ratio

Table 1.4. Some items of marketing costs of banana (Ksh per bunch) Items of costs Assembling and loading at source Transport cost Custom fees Council fees Offering cost at Wakulima Total

2.70

Uganda Mbale to Wakulima 1.00

36.60 – 7.50 0.60

25.00 10.00 3.50 0.60

47.40

40.10

Kisii/Nyeri to Wakulima

Source: Tschirley, Muendo and Weber (2004)

wholesalers and retailers together is 24% of the consumer price. This implies that 40% is the real cost of marketing (this figure includes 11% physical losses during the marketing chain and 5.4% cost incurred by the farmer in marketing the produce). The real challenge of the entire system is to reduce both the “profit” margins of intermediaries, trim the real cost Farms and assembly markets of Uganda Rural retailers

of the various marketing functions and “tilt” more benefits to farmers. To achieve this, it would be important to train farmers on how to produce high quality bananas and organize them into marketing groups. Such initiatives have been pioneered by Africa Harvest and represent new thinking in resolving the banana marketing challenge in Kenya. Credit is essential to improve crop productivity, but 59% of the farmers do not borrow from any agency. A positive feature of Kenya’s credit delivery system is that 90% of the farmers requiring credit could borrow from one or the other source. Out of 41% of the farmers who took credit, as many as 58.6% borrowed from cooperative banks, 15.2% from parastatals, 13% from traders/input dealers and 12% from relatives or friends. Thus, 75% of the borrowing farmers depended on institutional sources of credit. Owing to the high establishment costs of TC banana plantations, an efficient credit delivery system will be quite critical for up-scaling the TC banana industry in Kenya.

Small-scale farmers

Large-scale farmers

Rural assembling markets

Rural consumers Urban wholesale markets

Open-air retail markets

Kiosks/Middleclass green grocers

High-end green grocers

Super markets

Hotels, hospitals, army & schools

Urban consumers Figure 1.1. Marketing channels for banana in Kenya. 5

TC_banana_for Web.indd 5

8/21/2008 9:29:20 PM

Superiority of TC banana During the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, the banana industry in Kenya faced several challenges that reduced yields, led to widespread loss of banana orchards and lack of expansion in banana cultivation area. The main hindrance throughout these decades was the lack of healthy planting material5. The conventional method of generating planting materials through suckers led to further spread of diseases and pests, and did not allow large scale expansion of area under banana cultivation. The decline in the production resulted in a steep rise in banana prices, taking the fruit out of reach of common households, and opening import markets for banana from Uganda and Tanzania. There was a reported public outcry on the state of the banana industry in the late 1980s. Again in the mid 1990s, as already mentioned, the banana industry in Kenya received a major setback and the acreage under cultivation declined sharply from an average of 78,254 hectares during 1992– 1993 to 46,426 hectares during 1996. This sharp decline by 41% within a span of 2 years was attributed mainly to: (a) high incidence of pests (banana weevils and nemotodes) and diseases like banana leaf spot (black and yellow sigatoka), and fusarium wilt (Panama disease); (b) traditional practice of using untreated suckers as planting material; and (c) non-availability of disease-free and healthy planting material. The incidence of pests and diseases, poor agronomic and plant husbandry practices, and little or no use of manures and fertilizers made banana cultivation a losing proposition for the farmers. It is in this context that TC banana technology came as a boon for the farmers of Kenya. The initiative to produce TC banana plantlets and supply these to farmers helped in the recovery of the area under banana cultivation in the country. Not only did the acreage go up, the yield too improved, and the resource-poor, tiny and small-scale farmers improved their income and food security levels.

Banana harvest; a farmer prepares the banana fruit for transport to the market

Based on the limited information available, Africa Harvest estimates that the current capacity of TC plantlet production in Kenya is 753,000 per year (Table 1.5). Up to the end of 2004, it was estimated that 4.45 million TC plantlets were produced and distributed in Kenya. Taking these estimates further, it is reasonable to assume that during 2005 and 2006, an additional 1.506 million TC banana plantlets were planted by the farmers. Thus, at the end of 2006, Kenya had around 5.96 million TC banana plants.

5. Kahangi, 1996

Table 1.5. Production and distribution of TC banana plantlets in Kenya Nurseries/ Organizations JKUAT GTL KARI Centers ATL Others Total

Number of years

Plantlets per year (average)

Total plantlets supplied up to 2004

8 6 – 4 – –

150,000 500,000 8,000 80,000 15,000 753,000

1,200,000 3,000,000 34,000 165,000 50,000 4,449,100

Estimated supply during 2005 and 2006 300,000 1,000,000 16,000 160,000 30,000 1,506,000

Cumulative at the end of 2006 1,500,000 4,000,000 50,000 325,000 80,000 5,955,000

Source: BTA (2000), Mbogo (2004) and author’s assessment.

Socio-economic impact assessment of the tissue culture banana industry in Kenya

TC_banana_for Web.indd 6

8/21/2008 9:29:22 PM

In the context of banana production in Kenya, TC banana plantlets and associated technology has come as a boon to the banana growers of Kenya. TC banana technology is not just the new planting material but a complete package, indicating a shift from low input−low output banana production to a highly profitable and remunerative production paradigm. TC banana plants grow faster, are free from pests and diseases, are uniform, produce fruits early, and the second crop also matures earlier than sucker plantations. With the initiatives of KARI, JKUAT and Africa Harvest, the production of TC plantlets has grown up to 753,000 per year. Four major initiatives that helped the growth of TC banana in Kenya are KARI−ISAAA project on biotechnology to benefit small-scale banana producers; Biotechnology Trust Africa (BTA)– JKUAT initiative on TC banana plantlet production and diffusion of technology; Africa Harvest–TechnoServe Project on developing pro-poor TC banana industry in Kenya; and Africa Harvest–DuPont Chura Tissue Cultural Banana Project. At the end of 2006, Kenya had around 5.96 million TC banana plants, occupying 5.22% of the total banana cultivation area of 82,000 hectares in the country. This trend is likely to continue in the future. The average yield of TC banana at 12.85 tonnes per acre is 2.2 times the average yield of non-TC banana plantations. Though the establishment cost of TC banana plantation is considerably higher than

Tissue culture banana plantlets ready for sale at a hardening nursery in Muranga, Kenya

that of non-TC banana plantation, the net income from TC banana is 145% higher than that of non-TC banana. It is clearly evident that from all angles—yield, cash income, net income, labor income and unit cost of production—TC banana technology is superior to non-TC technology. The profitability of TC banana plantation is also higher than most of the competing crops (See Tables 1.6, 1.7 and 1.8).

Table 1.6. Comparative costs and returns from non-TC banana and TC banana plantations (1998) (Ksh per acre) Particulars (A) Non-TC banana Establishment cost (Ksh) Recurring annual costs (Ksh) Cost annuity (Ksh) Average yield (tonnes/ha) Income annuity (Ksh) Net income per year (Ksh) Return per labor day (Ksh) Unit cost (Ksh per tonne) (B) TC banana Establishment cost (Ksh) Recurring annual costs (Ksh) Cost annuity (Ksh) Average yield (tonnes/ha) Income annuity (Ksh) Net income per year (Ksh) Return per labor day (Ksh) Unit cost (Ksh per tonne)

Small-scale (0.37)

Medium-scale (0.41)

Large-scale (0.22)

Weighted average (1.00)

8,596 4,791 5,996 4.35 23,774 17,778 929 1,313

10,262 5,839 7,248 5.62 29,312 22,064 904 1292

15,059 7,990 9,992 7.57 38,002 28,010 858 1,357

10,786 5,924 7,388 5.58* 29,174 21,786 903 1,314

44,439 8,049 13,815 10.89 60,853 47,038 1,251 1,206

46,309 9,777 15,774 13.03 71,744 55,970 1,271 1,175

50,335 12,665 19,159 1,4.61 78,388 59,229 1,211 1,280

46,503 9,773 15,794 12.59* 69,176 53,382 1,250 1,210

Source: Qaim (1999), Tables 8–10, pp. 16–17.

TC_banana_for Web.indd 7

8/21/2008 9:29:26 PM

Table 1.7. Costs and returns for TC banana plantation under an alternative price scenario (Ksh per acre)

Particulars Establishment cost (Ksh) Annual operational cost (Ksh) Total cost (Ksh) Yield (tonnes) Price per tonne (Ksh) Gross income (Ksh) Net income to the farmer (Ksh) Net income to the farmer for his labor input (Ksh)

Scenario 1 [as given by Mbogoh et. al. (2004)] Subsequent year up First year to 5th year 66,200 – 31,900 31,900 98,100 31,900 10.78 23.76 14,205 14,205 153,130 337,510 55,030 305,610 135,130 325,710

Scenario (our calculations) First year 66,200 31,900 98,100 11.48 11,000 126,280 28,180 108,280

Subsequent year up to 5th year – 31,900 31,900 15.03 11,000 165,330 133,430 153,530

Table 1.8. Costs and returns from alternative crops in Kenya (Ksh per acre) Crop Cabbage Tomato Kale Spinach Irish Potato Beans Maize Lettuce Cauliflower

Cost 49,800 39,760 35,220 37,800 61,960 20,800 30,000 40,770 36,660

Return 200 bags × 1000 = 200,000 8 tonnes × 15,000 = 120,000 150 bags × 400 = 60,000 200 bags × 400 = 80,000 70 bags × 1000 = 70,000 8 bags × 3000 = 24,000 25 bags × 1200 =30,000 300 bags × 400 =120,000 150 bags × 2250 = 337,500

Net return 150,200 80,240 24,800 42,200 8,040 3,200 – 79,230 300,840

Source: Mbogoh et. al. (2004)

Africa Harvest Chairman, Dr. Kanayo Nwanze (holding TC banana plantlets) explains to Gisele D’Almeida, an Africa Harvest Director, why TC banana are superior to non-TC ones during a visit to a lab

Socio-economic impact assessment of the tissue culture banana industry in Kenya

TC_banana_for Web.indd 8

8/21/2008 9:29:27 PM

Economic and social impact of TC banana projects of Africa Harvest The package Africa Harvest has adopted a ‘whole value chain’ approach in its TC banana projects. The implementation of this approach is split into five stages: (a) awareness creation, (b) seedling availability and affordability, (c) production and orchard management, (d) post-harvest handling and treatment, and (e) marketing and consumer acceptance. The ‘whole value chain’ development involved: (a) transferring TC banana technology from South Africa (using both public and private sectors) to Kenya; (b) producing and making available TC plantlets in Kenya to meet expanding demand; (c) enhancing affordability by developing a microfinance revolving fund scheme; (d) creating a system for distribution of TC plantlets; (e) training for orchard management and provision of extension services; (f) training on post-harvest management and handling; (g) developing a marketing system in line with consumer preferences; and (h) empowering farmers through promotion of banana growers’ associations.

The Africa Harvest initiatives and projects concentrated on producing disease-free planting material; technology transfer to farmers; arranging for supply of needed inputs for adoption of TC banana technology; farmer training in agronomic and post-harvest management practices and evolving an efficient and farmer-friendly system of disposal of marketed surplus of TC banana products. Through its two projects, Africa Harvest reorganized five old farmer groups and started new groups in Maragua (13) and Kandara (28) and Chura (145). It mobilized and trained 8,000 farmers and persuaded them to plant 533,000 TC banana plantlets on their farms. The trained groups established seven satellite nurseries. Demonstration plots of TC banana were started on 163 fields, and a large number of farmers were made aware of the benefits of planting TC banana and how to care for the orchards. The farmers were also trained in post-harvest management of bunches and marketing. At least 140 farmer-trainers were equipped with skills to advise and support other farmers. To support marketing activities, two models were created: first, a marketing company with farmers as shareholders—Tissue Culture Banana Enterprises Limited (TCBEL)—was set up; second, farmers were organized into marketing groups by setting up collection centers and establishing tieups with potential buyers and traders, based on the TechnoServe model. In addition, Africa Harvest

Esther Gachugu, an early TC banana adopter, receiving agronomic advice from Wangari Kiragu, Africa Harvest

TC_banana_for Web.indd 9

8/21/2008 9:29:29 PM

(5.22% of total banana area), and difference in the net income accruing to TC and nonTC banana growers (Ksh 224,526 per hectare). Thus, TC banana growers earned an additional income of around Ksh 963 million (by adopting TC banana in place of non-TC banana). (iii) Thus, the direct and indirect economic impact of TC banana program in terms of earnings can Economic impact be placed at Ksh 6471 million. Banana occupies a distinctive place in Kenyaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s na(iv) The additional income from TC banana has increased access to food for small-scale farm tional as well as household economy. It occupies families, which has considerably helped in imonly 7.44% of the gross cropped area, but its share proving the food security, nutritional levels and in total fruit area of Kenya is quite substantial at economic status of the rural poor in Kenya. 55%. Nutritionally, banana is superior to many other fruits. In several provinces of Kenya, a large pro(v) Further, banana has provided cash income seportion of the farmers grow and consume bananas curity to the poor farmers because it provides as one of the staple foods. almost continuous inNearly 83.5% of the total come flow throughout banana output comes from the year, even under small-scale farmers owning low input regimes. This up to 0.5 hectares of land. apart, banana suckers Banana-growing families and leaves are used as consume, on an average, animal feed, especially 300 gm banana per capita during the dry seasons per day as against 60 gm when no other source by rest of the population. of fodder is available. Apart from its nutritional (vi) Apart from the values, banana is a reliable additional income that and regular source of cash accrued to TC bananaincome to around 300,000 growing families, introrural families. Therefore, duction of TC banana the importance of this crop and consequent revival in tackling the problems of Victoria Ndirangu, Africa Harvest, teaching farm management to a of the banana economy banana farmers group in Maragua district. poverty, food insecurity had a multiplier ecoand malnutrition in Kenya nomic impact on the rest of Kenyaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s econois immense and does not need further justification. my by providing employment and economic/ business opportunities to village assemblers, To highlight the economic gains: wholesalers, urban retailers, transporters, (i) TC banana helped the banana industry in relaborers in wholesale markets, manufacturers covering from the setback it faced during the of packaging materials and agricultural labor mid-1990s. The area under banana cultivahouseholds. tion that had gone down to 46,426 hectares (vii) Increased production of banana also positiveby 1996, but went up to 79,808 hectares by ly impacted consumers by way of lower real 2004 and was predicted to increase to around prices. 82,000 hectares during 2006. It is not that all (viii) The overall economic impact of TC banana this additional area came under TC banana but has been that all sections of Kenyaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s poputhe entire campaign of TC banana through the lation have been benefited and the economic four major initiatives, provided a ray of hope benefits derived by small-scale resource poor for the banana growers. Increase in banana farmers have been substantially more than the cultivation areas to the magnitude of 35,574 benefits accruing to other sections. hectares (82,000 minus 46,426) within 10 years resulted in an additional net income of Social impact Ksh 5508 million accruing to 300,000 banana growers. The social impact of the TC banana project has also been substantial. At the household level: (ii) The direct economic impact of TC banana can be assessed by the area under TC ba(i) A TC banana plantation is an important adnana, which is estimated at 4288 hectares ditional asset for the family. established networks of farmers groups with other development partners, including public and private sector organizations. It also used the mass media to widely communicate the advantages of TC banana farming as demonstrated in selected project areas. The entire package of initiatives reveals considerable economic and social impact at the household, community and macro levels.

Socio-economic impact assessment of the tissue culture banana industry in Kenya

TC_banana_for Web.indd 10

8/21/2008 9:29:30 PM

(ii) Increase in banana production at the farm level has increased food security. (iii) Generally, families who had adopted TC bananas do not require food assistance during periods of food scarcity or prolonged drought. (iv) Malnutrition among members of the household has also reduced owing to the additional income leading to dietary diversity. (Purchase of other foods is an important use of the income generated.) (v) The adoption of TC banana has led to the economic empowerment of women because generally income from banana is controlled by women. (vi) More cash income has allowed the household to improve other quality of life indicators by way of payment of secondary school fees for the children, improved housing, and diversification of income. (vii) Decision-making and dynamics within the family have changed with the increased income. (viii) While monetization of bananas could have the effect of lowering household consumption, selling by grade always results in some bananas not being purchased. Thus, there are is no evidence of decreased household consumption. In fact, the indications are that increased banana production has led to increased consumption at the household level.

At the community level: (i) The formation of cohesive farmer groups has empowered the groups to address not only agronomic issues and concerns but community concerns also. (ii) It has provided an entry point for other development activities. (iii) The farmer groups have also been effective in addressing anti-social behavior within the community. (iv) The requirement of the group’s support to access to credit has increased the member’s accountability to the community. (v) The ‘collective voice’ for community improvement has always been important and the formation of groups has influenced the community development fund expenditure.

Gender dimensions of impact • Improved banana production is contributing to household welfare, especially of women and children because average access and control of income from banana sales showed higher control by women. • Projected additional income to the family after adoption of TC banana cultivation reflects an increase in disposable income for the family. • A substantial proportion of the income from sale of bananas goes toward purchase of other food items by women.

Victoria Ndirangu, Africa Harvest, demonstrating planting of TC banana plantlets to farmers in Chura Village, Kiambu district.

TC_banana_for Web.indd 11

8/21/2008 9:29:32 PM

• Banana has improved the nutrition value of household diets and thereby improved general health and productivity of the households, and this includes women and girls. • Many households have been able to raise school fees from the sales of bananas, increasing the possibility of educating the girl-child. • Families have been able to construct good houses from the sale of bananas. Often, given the control that women have over banana incomes, home improvements will start with a modern kitchen, benefiting the entire family. • Families have acquired assets from sale of bananas, e.g. mobile phones, bicycles and consumer durables for the family. This further improved the quality of life for the women, children and entire family. • The overall membership of men to women in TC banana project groups is approximately in the ratio of 1:1. However, when marketing is the major emphasis there is an increase in male participation and control over banana

production (70 M/30 F) at the expense of women.

Technical impact Apart from economic and social impact, TC banana technology has also shown some technical impacts: (i) The availability of large quantities of clean and superior planting material has enabled farmers participating in the project to reclaim their old banana orchards. (ii) TC banana technology has resulted in substantial reduction in losses from pests and diseases. (iii) Additional productivity per unit of time accrued owing to the early fruiting and maturing period of TC banana when compared with that for the traditional banana. (iv) Bigger bunch weights of TC banana, compared with that of traditional banana also added to the productivity of land. (v) TC banana production results in easy coordination of marketing due to more uniform and simultaneous production of large quantities of bananas.

Socio-economic impact assessment of the tissue culture banana industry in Kenya

TC_banana_for Web.indd 12

8/21/2008 9:29:32 PM

Institutional capacity of Africa Harvest

Africa Harvest CEO Dr Florence Wambugu (second left) with Dr Paul Schickler, Vice President, DuPont (left) touring a TC banana plantation in Chura Village, Kiambu district

The ‘whole value chain’ strategy developed and perfected by Africa Harvest has led to a model for introducing new technologies for resource-poor small-scale farmers. The ‘whole value chain’ model links entrepreneurs and companies operating throughout the value chain, from the provision of seeds (plantlets) to the production in farmers’ fields and all the way to the final marketing when consumers purchase a finished product. The TC banana project methodology can also be adapted and applied to other vegetatively propagated crops, such as pineapple and cassava. Africa Harvest’s staff have gained experience from previous engagements in public sector agricultural research institutions, large multinational corporations and local private sector companies. Based on these experiences, Africa Harvest has critical insights on how to manage private/public sector relationships. This is in ensuring availability of quality or improved germplasm and seeds for agricultural production in order to stimulate growth for rural community development. The expertise and experience that has been gained by the staff while working in these projects, is important in ensuring success in the implementation of projects and programs that are linked to the markets. Africa Harvest has been a strong advocate for creative partnerships with NGOs, local and international private sector organizations working to facilitate the acceptance of new technologies and building African human capacity and infrastructure. The TC banana initiatives of Africa Harvest have:

(a) Strengthened the capacities of farmer organizations to participate more actively in the generation and dissemination of agricultural technologies, in particular, through more proactive partnering with the research and extension systems; on-farm experiences have identified additional research questions that need to be answered. (b) Improved the efficiency, accountability, and sustainability of the national agricultural technology generation and advisory systems, including strengthening their linkages with regional and international institutions; the banana project implementation has formed partnerships and linkages with national, regional and international institutions. (c) Promoted the development of efficient market chains for the delivery of agricultural technologies and inputs. (d) Strengthened the capacity of government to deliver extension functions through capacity building and support. (e) Supported the development, at the regional level, of effective organizations (networks) of producers/technology users, research institutions, technology suppliers and policy makers, to facilitate efficient technology transfer across countries; the plan for a virus indexing facility will greatly enhance TC banana scale up and out. Africa Harvest’s TC Banana Program has been identified by the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) as one of the model projects that 13

TC_banana_for Web.indd 13

8/21/2008 9:29:34 PM

Awareness creation & baseline surveys

Seedling availability & affordability

Growing & orchard management

Post-Harvest handling & treatment

Marketing & consumer acceptance

Figure 1.2: Effectiveness of ‘whole value chain’ approach

need to be scaled up regionally. NEPAD plans to undertake this upscale through its Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP) implemented by the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) as one FARA’s Dissemination of New Agricultural Technologies in Africa (DONATA) projects. Other DONATA projects include the New Rice for Africa (NERICA) and cassava projects. Africa Harvest has been selected as the lead organization to help facilitate dissemination of TC banana technology in Africa. Africa Harvest is also providing technical support to INTERFACE (an NGO with a mission to improve competitiveness of African agribusiness enterprises in 14 West African countries). Africa Harvest’s contribution is to demonstrate the benefits of TC banana farming in Senegal and the Sahel region. Africa Harvest is also partnering with other organizations in an East African Regional Virus Indexing Project.

Africa Harvest’s ‘whole value chain’ implementation strategy The ‘whole value chain’ approach developed by Africa Harvest has been quite effective in several ways, some of which are enumerated here. (i) The value chain has been very effective in awareness creation as reflected in the following: • Through Farmers Field Schools (FFS) the farmers were trained in land preparation methods, the correct way of planting TC Bananas, weeding, de-suckering, harvesting and post-harvest handling techniques. • They were involved in the project planning and were aware of the project period. • They were also involved in the regular monitoring and evaluation of the project. • Through exchange visits and market visits, farmers were made aware of the markets for their products. • Packaging of information in the form of guidelines to farmers and brochures on uses of bananas has helped the value chain approach in empowering farmers through information on production, marketing and processing.

(ii) The value chain has also been effective in group formation and management. This has been done through: • Working with already formed groups and using the groups to replicate their activities in the neighboring regions, i.e. the demonstration effect. • Capacity building of groups by helping them to draw up constitutions, call for regular meetings and training them on group dynamics. This has enhanced cohesion and management of the groups. • Groups have also been trained to form committees among themselves, including marketing, production, processing and dispute-resolution committees, which have strengthened the value chain. (iii) The value chain has been quite successful in helping farmers acquire planting materials. • The planting materials have been sourced from private laboratories like GTL and ATL, and from public institutions like JKUAT, KARI-Thika and KARI-Kakamega. • The private laboratories (GTL and ATL) have the capacity to produce large quantities of planting materials as compared with the public institutions. (iv) The value chain could achieve only limited success in ensuring affordability of the planting materials, except subsidizing the purchase of plantlets. However, there have been concerted efforts aimed at reducing the cost by: • Setting up of hardening nurseries in the production areas to reduce the cost of transporting an already hardened plant as it is normally bulky and expensive to transport. • Consulting the producers on possible ways of reducing the cost per plantlet. • Working with micro-credit institutions so that the farmers can get loans in kind and repay from the proceeds of the crop. (v) The value chain has addressed private producer’s issues in that now there is at least one private TC banana production unit in Kenya—GTL.

Socio-economic impact assessment of the tissue culture banana industry in Kenya

TC_banana_for Web.indd 14

8/21/2008 9:29:34 PM

(vi) The value chain has addressed the issue of community nurseries by: • Training nursery operators in the project areas. • Entrepreneurs who were willing to invest were appraised, evaluated and trained by KARI scientists on establishment and management of nurseries. Those who have been trained are to be used as Training of Trainers (TOT) agents to train others at the community level. (vii) The value chain has not been successful in securing subsidies for farmers because there is no banana policy in place. However there is a stakeholders’ process of preparing a policy paper that would suggest to the government to consider offering subsidies to banana farmers and on the inputs so as to reduce the cost of plantlets to the farmers. (viii) The value chain has been successful in dealing with the micro-credit component in the banana project, where micro-finance institutions like KRep Bank have been partners in implementing the project. (ix) Training on good agronomic practices from planting to harvesting is an area where the value chain has been very successful. (x) The value chain adequately addressed post-harvest handling issues. Farmers have been trained on banana handling after harvesting to ensure that they remain clean. (xi) The value chain has addressed the marketing issue effectively as is evident from the following: • Banana farmers have been linked to the Highridge Banana Growers and Marketing Association (HBGMA). • The farmers have also been linked to Kenya Gatsby Trust (KGT), which does market research and informs the farmers on the pricing and market trends. • KGT also helps to negotiate with buyers on behalf of farmers and facilitate signing of contracts. • A farmers shareholding company (TCBEL) has been established. • Marketing and collection centers have been created. As has been discussed above, owing to the adoption of the ‘whole value chain’ approach in the project intervention areas of Africa Harvest, the demand for TC banana plantlets has been increasing rapidly. The approach is very appropriate and its effectiveness has been amply demonstrated by the output and outcome of the projects implemented by Africa Harvest.

TC bananas yield better quality and quantity fruit than traditional varieties

TC_banana_for Web.indd 15

8/21/2008 9:29:38 PM

The ‘whole value chain’ approach requires considerable institutional and physical infrastructure, in the absence of which the rate of adoption of TC banana and replacement of traditional/non-TC banana cannot be accelerated. The efforts to upscale the TC banana movement will need all the components of the approach to be in place for achieving desired levels of success.

Up-scaling the adoption of TC bananas Based on the implementation experience and achievements in the two provinces, there are several issues that emerge, which need to be considered while planning for a nationwide up-scaling of the TC banana program. Some of these are discussed here. Length of the project cycle (i) The short project cycle of 3 years did not allow enough time for group formation, technology transfer, sustained change in agronomic practices and follow-up. It resulted in the following: • Many groups (21–25%) could not mature into strong cohesive groups. • Some farmers who joined the groups later in the project cycle could get only limited experience with the management of their orchards. • Farmer trainers also could get only limited experience in helping other farmers and identifying problems or in training new groups because of the short time span after their training till the completion of the current project. Sustainability (i) Sustainability components that were built into the project include capacity building of Ministry of Agriculture extension staff; developing groups through a comprehensive group formation and training process (time-consuming but recognized as key to long-term sustainability of gains made during the project); training farmers to act as farmer-trainers; establishment of hardening nurseries; linkage with supply sources; development of entrepreneurial skills among the nursery managers; and formation of partnerships with other agencies. In addition, the access to market has been a fundamental component of the sustainability strategy. All these dimensions need to be built into the up-scaling program. Subsidies (iii) Subsidies to resource-poor farmers were important to allow them to purchase the improved TC banana plantlets. The revolving fund and the savings plan that each group has established has been an important avenue for farmers to access a loan either from the group or from K16

REP. Keeping in view the high cost of TC banana plantation cultivation, provision for a revolving fund or access to credit facilities should be an essential component of up-scaling efforts. Research (iv) In the initial project (Rockefeller/IDRC), ripening abnormalities were observed in TC banana harvests from a farm in Bahati Maragua in 1998. KARI investigated these abnormalities and found that there was a very severe deficiency of potassium (K) in the soil. Banana is an important source of potassium and it is an important element in banana nutrition. Field observations in the project area and subsequent soil analysis indicated that potassium deficiency in the soil is a significant constraint for some farmers. However, the magnitude of the problem is unknown. As TC bananas are a high-yielding variety, soil fertility over the life of the plantation is quite important and a complete mapping—of potassium availability in the soil—should be undertaken before introducing TC banana in any new area. (v) KARI has set up several demonstration plots of TC banana in various regions of the country. While first-harvest information is available, there are no reports of ongoing longitudinal analysis of the impact of TC banana introduction at the demonstration sites over the life of the plantation. There is a need for long-term research on the different varieties of TC bananas in the different agro-ecological zones, including on soil fertility status. (vi) Farmers adopt TC agronomic practices to various degrees. Therefore, a program of on-farm research on TC banana plantations adopting different farm practices should be launched, which would provide valuable information for project implementers and for extension service personnel. Increased TC varietals (vii) As identified in the baseline survey, cooking varieties are desired by many farmers in both Central and Eastern provinces. Cooking varieties are recognized as an important part of the dietary intake in western Kenya. Currently, commercial laboratories carry the traditional Cavendish dessert types of bananas. Both KARI and JKUAT have indicated that they have produced some TC cooking varieties either for evaluation or on a special request. Cooking varieties that are certified as disease-free are not available in commercial quantities in Kenya. TC cooking varieties of bananas are available in Uganda, but the lack of a virus-indexing facility in the East African region makes it unwise to import TC bananas from the region. Africa Harvest sourced cooking va-

Socio-economic impact assessment of the tissue culture banana industry in Kenya

TC_banana_for Web.indd 16

8/21/2008 9:29:38 PM

rieties from the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute–International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantain (IPGRIINBAP) gene bank in Lenven, Belgium, through the High Veldt TC Laboratory in South Africa. It has taken time to develop these varieties and produce the plantlets in large numbers. The lack of a virus-indexing facility in the East African region is a constraint to scaling-up and scalingout of TC banana technology. Regulations, standards and guidelines (viii)Strict quality control standards and quality assurance management is essential to limit the somachromal variations that can occur in TC. The commercially acceptable level is less than 2%. For farmers, obtaining mutant planting material is a significant financial loss even if the planting material is replaced. There is a need for putting in place regulations, standards, guidelines and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that TC laboratories producing plantlets for sale meet the commercially acceptable standard of less than 2% somachromal variation (mutants). Gender issues in program planning and implementation (ix) The respondents in baseline surveys reported that bananas were an important income source for women. In Maragua, women controlled the income from bananas in 89% of the households and jointly controlled it in 5% of the households.

In Meru, they controlled the income in 57% of the households and jointly controlled it in 32%. As banana moves from the ‘subsistence’ crop category to the commercial one, it is essential to consider the gender dynamics. In the initial groups established to promote and support the introduction of bananas among small farmers, 56% of the members were women. However, in the project implemented with TechnoServe that had a marketing promotional thrust, only 30% of the members in the new groups were women. Reports indicate that in some instances where marketing is done through the group, even though the woman is the member of the group, a male member from her family has approached the treasurer for the money accruing from the sale of bananas. Since men and women often have different priorities when it comes to spending, erosion of income for women from a traditional important source may have a negative effect on the family’s standard of living. In the peri-urban project in Chura implemented by Africa Harvest, 66% of the farmers were women. (x) In the TechnoServe project, only 4 of the 26 farmers who were trained as farmer trainers were women. In the peri-urban project implemented by Africa Harvest, 47 out of the 105 farmers trained were women. Though it is true that male farmers may have more disposable time, it is important to monitor the impact of male farmer

A broker grading and negotiating fruit prices with a small scale banana farmer 17

TC_banana_for Web.indd 17

8/21/2008 9:29:41 PM

trainers on women farmers. Again, when opportunities arose for farmer-to-farmer exchange and to attend field days, less than 25% of those who attended were women in Managua, Kandara and Meru. In fact, for the farmer-to-farmer exchanges for the Kandara farmers, 100% of the participants were male. Of the nurseries that were set up, women farmers set up 50% and male farmers the other 50%. Of the 20 demonstrations supported by FarmChem with Pioneer Hybrid Maize, only three were conducted by women farmers, while the remaining were conducted by male farmers. Of the 106 maize demonstrations in Chura, women farmers conducted 58. Gender issues in program planning and implementation will need to be carefully considered to ensure wider impact on food security and poverty alleviation at the household level. In scaling-up and scaling-out of the program, it will be important to devise strategies that empower women, and mitigate against loss of an important income source. There may be a need to provide additional support for women (who have family responsibilities) to fully participate in learning opportunities.

Availability of clean TC planting material (xi) Availability of timely, pest- and disease-free TC banana planting material is an ongoing issue. It was noted by farmers in the baseline study that the demand is greater than the supply. Farmers in Meru had paid one of the labs an advance for TC plantlets, but were put on a waiting list. Africa Harvest, in the first year of the Chura project, had placed an order for 40,000 plantlets (with Kenyan suppliers) but only 6,000 were procured. Both private and public laboratories are important sources of planting material but cannot meet the demand. KARI produces limited numbers of TC plantlets, as do

two private laboratories. GTL has a laboratory in Nairobi, while ATL imports certified, diseasefree plantlets from South Africa. In scaling-up and scaling-out, there is an increased need for expanding the ability to produce TC plantlets. There is also a need to produce TC banana varietals that farmers want to grow. These need to be produced by public or not-for-profit laboratories. An opportunity exists for the private sector to also upscale their production by introducing new TC varietals. In this context, Africa Harvest should engage a TC laboratory to do the groundwork to be able to assist in the development of desired varietals, and to increase the supply of both cooking and dessert TC banana plantlets. Poverty alleviation and community cohesiveness (xii) On the one hand, Africa Harvest has been inclusive in its promotion of TC banana as an important food security crop. It supports the adoption of TC bananas by households that do not have the means to pay for the planting material and that do not produce enough to be a supplier of bananas for a larger market. Africa Harvest builds cohesion in the group that has had the impact of assisting communities in becoming not only ‘development ready’ but in addressing community needs. It has used a strong community development approach. TechnoServe, on the other hand, with its focus on marketing, has seen farmers groups only as marketing targets, and therefore, does not have multiple objectives. These two approaches may not be totally compatible; Africa Harvest’s approach ensures that all farmers have a “stake”, while the TechnoServe approach focuses on groups that have marketable bananas, thereby marginalizes the very poor in the community.

Socio-economic impact assessment of the tissue culture banana industry in Kenya

TC_banana_for Web.indd 18

8/21/2008 9:29:41 PM

Projections of TC banana area and production

Small scale farmers receive TC banana plantlets at a distribution center in Chura village, Kiambu district

Medium-term projections show the feasibility of increasing the area under banana plantations to 86,183 hectares by 2011, and 90,580 hectares by 2016. The targets for the increase in area under TC banana should be 12,927 hectares by 2011 and 36,232 hectares by 2016, which make up 15% and 40% of the total banana cultivation area in the country. The average yield of TC banana is projected to increase to 34.0 tonnes per hectare by 2011 and to 35.78 tonnes per hectare by 2016. As regards the

average yield of non-TC banana, it is expected to go up to 12.75 tonnes by 2011 and 13.40 tonnes per hectare by 2016. Considering these projections, the production of banana in the country is likely to be 1.37 million tonnes in 2011, of which around 32% will be contributed by TC banana. During 2016, the total banana production is anticipated to become 2.12 million tones, of which 64% will be contributed by TC banana (See Table 1.9).

Table 1.9. Projections of TC Banana Area and Production for 2016 Particulars Area (hectares) Total TC Non-TC Percentage share of TC to non-TC Yield (tonnes per ha) Total TC Non-TC Production (tonnes) Total TC Non-TC Percentage share of TC Compound growth rate (% per year from 2004)

2004 (actual)

2006 (anticipated)

2011 (projected)

2016 (projected) Scenario 1 Scenario 2

81,673 3,201 78,472 3.92

82,000 4,288 77,712 5.22

86,183 12,927 73,256 15.0

90,580 22,645 67,935 25.0

90,580 36,232 54,348 40.0

1,2.70 31.75 11.90

ND ND ND

15.94 34.04 12.75

19.00 35.78 13.40

22.35 35.78 13.40

1,036,138 101,632 934,506 9.81 –

ND ND ND ND –

1,374,049 440,035 934,014 32.0 4.1

1,720,567 810,238 910,329 47.1 4.3

2,024,644 1,296,381 728,263 64.0 5.7

ND – Not Done Scenario 1: 25% of total banana area under TC banana Scenario 2: 40% of total banana area under TC banana

TC_banana_for Web.indd 19

8/21/2008 9:29:47 PM

Demand for TC banana plantlets

Projections of TC banana growers

Small scale farmers receiving delivery of banana plantlets from Africa Harvest

Farmers are expanding and converting their farms to grow more bananas

The cultivation area projections made in the preceding section will require a system to produce, harden and sell TC banana plantlets on a much larger scale. The area under TC banana is projected to increase from 4,288 hectares in 2006 to 12,927 hectares in 2011 and to 22,645 hectares and 36,232 hectares during 2016 under Scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. These projections imply an additional TC banana area of 8,639 hectares by 2011 and a further addition of 9,718 hectares (Scenario 1) or 23,305 hectares (Scenario 2) by 2016.

Major changes in land policies and redistribution of land are not expected during the next 10 years. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that average banana holding size will remain the same as it is now. Our analysis in section 2.5 revealed an average banana holding size of 0.21 hectares (315 plants). Using this average, the number of TC banana growers, which was only around 20,419 during 2006, is likely to go up to 61,557 by 2011 and to 172,533 by 2016 (Scenario 2). Considering an average household size of six members, about 1.04 million rural people of Kenya would be benefited in case these projections are realized. Further, given the potential of TC banana cultivation in lifting these households above the poverty line, transforming the lives of more than one million rural poor will be a great achievement for Kenya’s policy makers and development practitioners. However, realizing the expansion of TC banana projected here, will need a solid package of efforts outlined in the subsequent sections.

Considering an average planting density of 1500 plants per hectare, the demand for TC plantlets will be around 12.96 million plantlets up to 2011 or around 2.59 million plantlets per year. This is more than three times the current capacity of TC plantlet production in Kenya. For Scenario 1 in 2016, the demand for plantlets would be even higher. The total demand for plantlets as per area expansion between 2011 and 2016 under Scenario 1 will be 14.58 million or around 2.92 plantlets per year. Meeting this slightly higher level of demand should not be a great challenge in view of the beneficial impact this will have on poor people. Besides, the infrastructure that will be created for meeting the demand for the period 2006 — 11 will be able to cater this additional demand. However, the demand for TC plantlets under Scenario 2 would be 34.96 million (23,305 × 1,500) plantlets for 5 years or around 7 million plantlets per year. It may be mentioned here that the demand for TC banana plantlets will be even more than that projected here because some of the existing TC banana plantations would need replacement beyond 2011. The plantlet production and hardening facilities would need to be scaledup considerably during the period 2011–2016 for realizing the projections under Scenario 2. 20

Socio-economic impact assessment of the tissue culture banana industry in Kenya

TC_banana_for Web.indd 20

8/21/2008 9:29:50 PM

Recommendations Government of Kenya With a view to realizing the projections of banana production, considerable up-scaling of infrastructure, both physical and institutional, will be needed. Apart from the infrastructure, the entire program will need to be taken up in a ‘mission mode’ approach for achieving the objectives in the shortest possible timeframe by dovetailing the activities of different relevant stakeholders. The main recommendations in this regard are as follows: (i)

With the objective of lifting one million rural poor out of the poverty trap, the Government of Kenya should constitute a Kenya Banana Mission (KBM) with a membership of (say) 10 members, to be headed by a renowned biotechnologist, preferably from outside the government system. The KBM’s secretariat should be located in the Ministry of Agriculture, with a National Director as its Chief Executive Officer. The Minister of Agriculture should be the patron of KBM.

(ii)

KBM should constitute five task forces—Task Force on TC Banana Research, Task Force on Transfer of Technology of TC Banana, Task Force on Input Supply for TC Banana Technology Adoption, Task Force on Marketing System for TC Banana, and Task Force on Policy for TC Banana.

(iii) TC plantlet production capacity should be increased to around 3 million per year between now and 2011, and to 7 million per year between 2011 and 2016. (iv) A separate unit for TC banana should be established at KARI. (v) To take up banana production under a mission mode approach: (a) TC banana should be included as an exclusive mandate of district and divisional level extension service staff of Ministry of Agriculture, with specified targets; (b) Africa Harvest should be encouraged, with necessary financial support, to establish a TC banana unit at the district level in important potential areas to enable Africa Harvest to upscale the TC banana industry in the country; and (c) around 2000 farmer groups, with 50 members each, should be organized as TC Banana Growers Groups and be provided the necessary functional support for establishing demonstration plots, hardening nurseries, input stocking depots and revolving funds. (vi) Around 200 TC banana hardening nurseries and 400 fertilizer and chemical depots should be established to be managed by farmers groups; and all the 2000 farmers’ groups should be provided with a revolving fund and

Africa Harvest consultants outside TCBEL offices in Chura, Kiambu district 21

TC_banana_for Web.indd 21

8/21/2008 9:29:56 PM

Banana fruit being packed for transport to be taken to market

be linked, through a savings bank, to either the cooperative or commercial bank. (vii) Around 400 baseline marketing centers, 40 divisional level marketing centers, and 8 district level centers for marketing TC banana should be established under either a cooperative or a company framework, and these should be organically linked to a terminal market-level institution. Each center should be provided with the necessary physical and institutional infrastructure, which could include platforms, weighting balances, storage space, pack hose, cold store, refrigerated vans and transport vehicles, apart form managerial services. (viii) For up-scaling the plantation of TC banana, a subsidy of at least Ksh 50 per plantlet should be provided by the government at least for the next five years. (ix) As the destruction of wilt-infected plants is in public interest, the government should subsidize the cost of the TC plantlet as a replacement of the infected plant and make it available free of cost to the farmers. (x) Investments need to be made in rural approach/connecting roads, setting up of plantlet hardening nurseries, input supply depots, marketing/collection centers, and cold/refrigerated stores to attract investors, including farmers, traders, transporters and cold chain operators, to this industry. (xi) KBM should specify grade standards for TC and non-TC banana fruits and all parameters of grades should be widely publicized for sell-

ers to put labels of certification at the time of sale. (xii) The credit policy should be made farmer friendly. The Central Bank of Kenya should issue guidelines to other banks about the maximum rate of interest that can be charged to farmers or farmersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; organizations. Further, credit should be liberally available to market functionaries involved in transport, storage and trade in bananas. (xiii) Government should provide a transport subsidy of, say 50% of the transport cost, to either the nursery managers or farmersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; groups on the basis of actual numbers of plantlets transported. (xiv)

The Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS) is reportedly responsible for the inspection of imported plantlets at the entry points and locally produced plantlets at the nurseries. It needs to scale-up its activities to TC banana for plantlet quality assurance and certification. Regulations, standards, guidelines and enforcement mechanisms should be put in place to ensure that TC plantlets produced by public or private laboratories meet the acceptable standards of less than 2% somachromal variation (mutants). A virus-indexing facility should also be put in place in the country.

(xv)

It is reported that banana is slowly replacing cassava as the second staple food (after maize) of Kenyans. While there is a policy of guaranteed price for maize-growing farm-

Socio-economic impact assessment of the tissue culture banana industry in Kenya

TC_banana_for Web.indd 22

8/21/2008 9:29:58 PM

ers, it is advisable to look for options to move to a regime of indirect price support for banana growers. The Task Force on Policy or KBM may look for options in this regard based on the experience of other developing countries. (xvi) KHCDA should be actively involved in KBM to work out the guidelines for registration of plantlet producers and hardening nurseries. (vii) The management of the fruit and vegetable markets, including that of banana, should under the Ministry of Agriculture. (xviii) Kenya’s agricultural statistical system should recognize banana as a priority crop and publish regular statistical information on this crop. (xix) Another major policy decision that may be critical for up-scaling the TC banana industry in Kenya is to bring in Africa Harvest as the National Nodal Agency for Kenya (Tissue Cultural) Banana Mission. (xx) While KBM shall function as a supervisory autonomous authority under the Ministry of Agriculture, a National Nodal Agency for implementation and coordination of various programs/components of KBM shall be necessary. Africa Harvest with its expertise and long experience can and should function as the National Nodal Agency for Banana Mission. Currently, Africa Harvest has three highly skilled and experienced officers, who should be retained during the next phase of the program.

Africa Harvest (xxi) Africa Harvest should engage in policy advocacy.

for a provincial-level marketing centre and transport and other management support system would be needed. (xxvi) At the district level, three field officers, motorcycles for each field staff, a model TC banana orchard and other infrastructure would be quite critical and should be provided. (xxvii) For scaling-up work at the divisional and location levels, transport and material support to the Ministry of Agriculture’s extension staff, along with technological backstopping by Africa Harvest/KARI/JKUAT should be ensured. (xxviii) Apart from the manpower and infrastructural support, Africa Harvest would also need funds for training, subsidies, farmer field visits and several other activities connected with the implementation of the program. (xxix) It should also have a TC laboratory and green house for production and hardening of TC banana plantlets. There is an expressed need for increased availability of clean cooking and dessert varieties. (xxx) The project cycle for a crop like banana should not be less than five years. (xxxi) All the components of a ‘whole value chain’, as successfully demonstrated in the earlier projects, should be built into the program. (xxxii) A gender equity strategy is needed to ensure that women who have been growing bananas gain access to the benefits of technology. Care must be taken to minimize the loss of income for women as bananas move from being a food crop to a commodity crop.

(xxii) Sustainability components should be built into all up-scaling programs. The up-scaling of the TC banana development programs requires replication of activities nationwide, and would call for considerable additional manpower.

(xxxiii) Complete soil fertility status of the selected area for TC banana program should be mapped out for devising appropriate nutrient-management recommendations.

(xxiii) The three field officers who were involved in Africa Harvest’s two TC projects during 2004–2006 should be included in the upscaling program so that the program benefits from their experience.

(xxxiv) Africa Harvest should be a strong advocate for research that has been identified as important, to improve TC banana production by small-scale resource-poor farmers.

(xxiv) At the Africa Harvest’s central office level, one project leader/director, along with senior field officers (one for each province), five dedicated vehicles for field work and necessary secretarial support for management and documentation should be provided. (xxv) At the provincial level, at least one Regional Coordinator for each province, infrastructure

Research

(xxxv) On-farm research on TC banana plantations with different orchard management practices used by the farmers should be launched as part of the scaling-up program. (xxxvi) A long-term research program on the performance of different dessert and cooking varieties of TC bananas under different agroclimatic conditions, including soil fertility status, should be initiated.

TC_banana_for Web.indd 23

8/21/2008 9:29:59 PM

TC_banana_for Web.indd 24

8/21/2008 9:29:59 PM

APPENDIX I Exhibit A Terms of Reference for an economic impact assessment of the Tissue Culture (TC) banana industry in Kenya Background information Banana is an important food crop in Kenya providing up to 25% of the calories. In addition to its importance as a food crop, sales from banana production provide an important contribution to the family income of small-scale farmers. Banana production in Kenya is basically a small-scale farm activity with a national average of 0.32 hectares (0.8 acres) of bananas per farm. In recent years, banana production has been declining. Crop infestations with pests and diseases, particularly the Panama disease, sigatoka virus, weevils and nematode complexes, and environmental degradation have been major causes of the decline. Through traditional cultural practices in banana production, farmers have unknowingly transmitted most of the banana pests and diseases through the use of banana suckers as planting material. The spread of pests and diseases through this practice can reduce banana yields up to 90%. i) Effect of TC introduction in Kenya (Pre and post-1996) According to Kenya’s Ministry of Agriculture data on banana production in Kenya, yields declined by over 5% in the five years leading to 1996 when the International Service for the Acquisition of Agribiotechnology Applications (ISAAA) managed the TC Banana project, commenced with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and the International Development Research Center (IDRC). Banana yields fell from a high of over 14 tons per hectare in the early 1990s to 10 tons per hectare in 1994. Between 1992 and 1996, annual banana production declined sharply by 550,000 tons from 1 million tons to 450,000 tons before recovering to 1.1 million tons in 1998. Thereafter, production stabilized at around 1 million tons annually. The decline in yield has been attributed to the rapid spread of diseases like sigatoka. Scientists at the Kenya Agriculture Research Institute (KARI) began using tissue culture to propagate improved planting materials in the late 1980’s beginning with pyrethrum and Irish potatoes, and then gradually expanding to sugar cane, cassava, banana and citrus fruits. In 1996, the Thika Centre became aware of the potential for enhancing banana production using tissue culture, and this laid the foundation for KARI, in partnership with the ISAAA, to implement a project titled “Banana biotechnology to benefit small scale banana producers in Kenya”.

The project commenced with funding assistance from the Rockefeller Foundation and IDRC. Phase 1 (1997–1999) of the project evaluated the feasibility and appropriateness of the technology within the current farming practices of small-scale farmers. Phase 2 (2000–2003) ensured a sustainable system of large scale production, distribution and utilization of tissue-culture derived bananas. The pilot activities demonstrated the suitability and adaptability of the technology and drastically raised the demand for the TC plantlets. Currently, the major commercial producers of TC banana plantlets are Genetic Technologies Limited (GTL), Aberdare Technologies Ltd. (ATL) and Jomo Kenyatta University. Africa Harvest has implemented two TC banana projects in central and eastern provinces of Kenya: “Developing pro-poor TC banana industry in Kenya” and the “Chura tissue culture banana project”. The first project funded by the Rockefeller Foundation commenced in 2003, and is designed to remove bottlenecks to project expansion and create long-term sustainability in the previous project funded by the Foundation and IDRC. This project is jointly implemented by Africa Harvest and Technoserve. The Chura tissue culture banana project funded by DuPont is designed to increase the yields of bananas and incomes of farmers in a densely populated area. Africa Harvest is using a ‘whole value chain approach coupled with entrepreneurship development. This approach consists of awareness creation, baseline studies, farmer group organization, technology transfer and training, establishing a distribution system, establishing a financing system, and access to subsidies and market development. ii) Rockefeller and DuPont-funded project briefs 1. Highlights of the Rockefeller-funded project implemented in the central and eastern provinces of Kenya. • The current Tissue Culture banana project, “Developing pro-poor TC-banana industry in Kenya” that commenced in 2003 and is ending in 2006 was designed to remove bottlenecks to project expansion and create long-term sustainability in the previous project funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and IDRC between 1997 and 2002. The project, through a workshop attended by key project staff of Africa Harvest, Tech-

TC_banana_for Web.indd 25

8/21/2008 9:29:59 PM

noserve and the Rockefeller Foundation identified factors that cause market failures. These factors included limited market information, access to markets, poor fruit quality, poor packaging, and inadequate ripening skills. To date, a total of 1600 farmers have been mobilized into groups with an adoption of over 84,000 banana plantlets covering 56 hectares. 2. The following are the highlights of the Chura project since its inception: • The project was implemented in Kiambu District located in central Kenya. • Formation of functional farmer groups as project entry points. • Training of farmers on the management of TC banana technology. • A baseline study for generation of benchmark data that will be useful in project implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. • Successful application of good orchard management skills by farmers. • The number of farmers who planted TC bananas increased by 208% from 1,000 in December, 2004 to 3,626 in December, 2005. • The total number of TC bananas planted also rose sharply by 288% from 42,000 (26 ha) in December, 2004 to 177,373 (112 ha) in December, 2005. • First Harvest celebrations in August 2005 • Formation of the TeeCee Banana Enterprises Limited (TCBEL), a 51% farmer-owned marketing company. Purpose of this study In light of the above history and Africa Harvest’s close association with the TC banana sector, Africa Harvest wishes to engage the services of an external consultant who will work closely with its relevant staff to evaluate the socio-economic effects of TC bananas, ten years after their introduction in Kenya. Scope and focus The Consultant will: • Assess progress made towards the achievement of results at the outcome, output, and impact levels. • Assess the effectiveness of the ‘whole value chain’ approach. • Assess the degree to which the results contribute to Africa Harvest’s vision of fighting hunger, malnutrition and poverty, and its mission to

help the poor achieve food security, economic well-being, and sustainable rural development. • Conduct an economic impact assessment. • Assess how the initiatives have impacted women as compared with men. • Identify lessons learned, constraints, and provide recommendations. Specific objectives (1) To chronicle the achievements of the various TC banana projects against project objectives and prior projections. (2) To document specific case studies on the socioeconomic effect of growing TC bananas at individual farmer and community levels. (3) To document trends in the development of TC technical expertise and related infrastructure expertise over the last 10 years. (4) To come up with recommendations on financial, personnel and infrastructure needed to sustain current growth rate in TC banana technology uptake, and to implement possible future TC projects, especially the proposed nationwide roll-out plan. (5) To identify the need for policy initiatives, regulatory and enforcement requirements, and research and development needs, and questions to be answered that have been informed by the implementation of the TC banana projects. Evaluation questions to be answered 1. What has been the contribution of the major stakeholders who include: (i) Donors – Rockefeller Foundation, DuPont (ii) Seedling producers – DuRoi, Aberdare Technologies Limited, Genetic Technologies Limited, KARI, Jomo Kenyatta University (iii) Project implementers – KARI, ISAAA, Africa Harvest, Biotechnology Trust Africa, Ministry of Agriculture (iv) Farmers – Reviewers to base their analysis on previous national surveys 2. How effective has the ‘whole value chain’ approach been? (i) Awareness creation, baseline survey and group formation and management (ii) Availability and affordability of planting material (iii) Private producers, community nurseries, subsidies, microfinance issues (iv) Training on and adoption of good agronomic practices from planting to harvesting (v) Appropriate post-harvest handling practices

Socio-economic impact assessment of the tissue culture banana industry in Kenya

TC_banana_for Web.indd 26

8/21/2008 9:30:00 PM

6. 7.

i) ii)

(vi) Effective marketing – Kenya Agricultural Commodity Exchange, Banana Grower’s Association, TeeCeeBEL What lessons can be learnt about the project planning and implementation processes, level of funding, and monitoring, and evaluation tools? What has been the effect of subsidies and ‘revolving fund’ on adoption by farmers and on communities? To provide both qualitative and quantitative sex disaggregated data on the impact on farmers and communities of participation in the TC banana initiatives (income, quality of life indicators, empowerment, household food security [income generation/ income saving]). What has been the effect of different marketing strategies and initiatives? Case studies from both the Rockefeller- and DuPont-funded projects – information needed includes level of empowerment, sustainability of change, rate of crop enterprise substitution with bananas, effect of revolving fund (subsidy), and the level of effective poverty alleviation. Impact at family level Case studies on resource poor and resource rich farmers Impact at community level Case study – ‘A transformed community’

Principles to be followed in conducting the evaluation • The Consultant is expected to act in a transparent manner, frequently updating Africa Harvest on progress. • The evaluation will primarily be a retrospective study involving human participants, which might require possible scrutiny of their private lives. The Consultant is therefore expected to conform to set ethics and standards of public research, and especially of public health and environmental impact research, which demand treatment of the participants with dignity, and upholding of the principle of informed consent before, during and after the study. Broad outlines on study methodology • The Consultant will be expected to define and describe the method of study, timelines and milestones to be used. In addition he or she will be expected to conform to rigorous scientific protocols that will result ina document that will be useful to policymakers, agricultural extension department, institutions of higher learning, and research institutes in the field of agriculture.

• The Consultant will submit the evaluation protocols to Africa Harvest for approval before he or she commences the study. • The Consultant will ensure confidentiality of all data collected during the study up to its submission as well as final reports to Africa Harvest. • The Consultant will have access to any relevant documents generated and owned by Africa Harvest to assist him or her in the study. Roles and responsibilities of the various personnel to be involved in the study • Africa Harvest is the sponsor of the study and the Consultant will deal directly with Africa Harvest throughout the whole process from consultant selection, negotiations for compensation, conduct of the survey, and submission of the final report. • The Consultant, in collaboration with Africa Harvest, will be expected to assemble a team that will be involved in preliminary research, data collection, logistical arrangements, travel and accommodation arrangements, and accessing any material that will be required to make the study successful. • It will be the responsibility of the Consultant to ensure that he or she fulfils what is expected of him or her as defined in the expected outcomes. Expected outcomes and reporting requirements • Raw data, both numerical and narrative, which may have been collected in the course of the evaluation to be submitted in electronic format. • Any data collection media, e.g. audio and video tapes, data sheets, that contain collected data and that are paid for by Africa Harvest. • Draft written report detailing findings of the evaluation to be submitted to Africa Harvest for approval. • Final report which, in addition, must contain recommendations on future actions submitted to Africa Harvest. The Consultant will deliver one printed and bound copy of the report and an electronic copy in both Microsoft Word and PDF formats. • Oral presentation on findings of the evaluation to Africa Harvest staff. • The Consultant will submit to Africa Harvest, a separate document that clearly describes the research instruments used. The document will contain questionnaires, research protocols

TC_banana_for Web.indd 27

8/21/2008 9:30:00 PM

or methodology, and proposed approaches to analysis, financial accounting, and timeline of achieved milestones. User and uses of the evaluation • The results of the study will be used by Africa Harvest as a resource to improve the design and implementation of similar projects in the future. • The evaluation report will also serve as a resource for deciding how to conduct similar evaluations in the future. • The final report will also be made available to public bodies like institutions of higher learning, research institutes and the Government of Kenya ministries. It is expected that the document will contribute towards formulation of various policies in the agricultural sector. Proposed work plan 1. Draft evaluation work plan: A draft evaluation work plan to be submitted within 2 weeks of the signing of the contract.

2. Evaluation work plan: The Consultant will produce a final evaluation work plan within one week of receiving comments from Africa Harvest on the draft work plan. 3. Draft evaluation report : The Consultant will submit a draft evaluation report for review by Africa Harvest within 2 weeks of returning from field mission. Since an oral presentation may not be feasible, a PowerPoint presentation of the findings of the evaluation may be requested at this time. 4. Evaluation report: The Consultant will submit a final evaluation report.within 2 weeks of receiving Africa harvest’s comments on the draft report. 5. Research instruments and raw data sets: The Consultant will submit to Africa Harvest a separate document that clearly describes the final research instruments used: questionnaires, focus and key informant interview guides, research protocols, and methodology and methods of analysis. In addition, raw data sets are to be submitted.

Socio-economic impact assessment of the tissue culture banana industry in Kenya

TC_banana_for Web.indd 28

8/21/2008 9:30:00 PM

APPENDIX II Acronyms AHBFI

Africa Harvest Biotech Foundation International

ATL

Aberdare Technologies Limited

BTA

Biotechnology Trust Africa

CAADP

Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Programme

DONATA

Dissemination of New Agricultural Technologies in Africa

FARA

Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa

FFS

Farmers Field Schools

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

GMM

Gross Marketing Margin

GTL

Genetic Technologies Limited

HBGMA

Highridge Banana Growers and Marketing Association

HCDA Horticulture Crops Development Authority IDRC

International Development Research Centre

INIBAP

International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantain

IPGRI

International Plant Genetic Resources Institute

ISAAA

International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications

JKUAT

Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology

KARI

Kenya Agricultural Research Institute

KBM

Kenya Banana Mission

KEPHIS

Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service

KGT

Kenya Gatsby Trust

MS-O

Marketed Surplus-Output

NEPAD

New Partnership for Africaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Development

NERICA

New Rice for Africa

Rockefeller Foundation

Tissue Culture

TCBEL

Tissue Culture Banana Enterprises Limited

TC_banana_for Web.indd 29

8/21/2008 9:30:00 PM

APPENDIX III Documents reviewed and References Africa Harvest Biotechnology Foundation International (AHBFI) (2002). Rural Community Development Using Biotechnology Improved Bananas and Trees, Report on Baseline Survey submitted to Ford Foundation, Nairobi, November, pp. 1–142. Africa Harvest Biotechnology Foundation International (AHBFI) (2003a). Helping Cura Village in Kenya Fight Hunger and Poverty by setting up a TC Banana Project, A Project Proposal Submitted to DuPont, August, pp. 1–13. Africa Harvest Biotechnology Foundation International (AHBFI) (2003b). Developing a Pro-Poor Tissue Culture Banana Industry in Kenya, A Final Rockefeller Funded Proposal, Submitted to Rockefeller Foundation, pp. 14–44. Africa Harvest Biotechnology Foundation International (AHBFI) (2004a). An Interim Report of Chura Farmer Profiles, pp. 1–25. Africa Harvest Biotechnology Foundation International (AHBFI) (2004b). The Chura Community TC Banana Project Baseline Survey Results, August, pp. 1–34. Africa Harvest Biotechnology Foundation International (AHBFI) (2004c). Annual Report December 2004, Africa Harvest/DuPont-Pioneer Tissue Culture Banana Chura Community Project, December, pp. 1–27. Africa Harvest Biotechnology Foundation International (AHBFI) (2005a). The Chura Community Tissue Culture Banana Project Report, DuPont/Africa Harvest Chura Project, November, pp. 1–39. Africa Harvest Biotechnology Foundation International (AHBFI) (2005b). The Chura Community Tissue Culture Banana Project, Annual Report 2005, AHBFI, pp. 1–49. Africa Harvest Biotechnology Foundation International (AHBFI) (2006a). Africa Harvest’s Five-Year Strategic Plan 2006-1010, AHBFI, pp. 1–44. Africa Harvest Biotechnology Foundation International (AHBFI) (2006b). Developing a Pro-Poor TC Banana Industry in Kenya, Final Three Year (June 2003–May 2006) Progress and Financial Report, Submitted to Rocke feller Foundation, Nairobi, AHBFI, June, pp. 1–39. Africa Harvest Biotechnology Foundation International (AHBFI) (2006c). The Chura Community Tissue Culture Banana Project, Final Three Year Progress and Financial Report 2004–2006, December, pp. 1–52. Argwings-Kodhek G., T.S. Jayne, G. Nyambane, T. Awuor and T. Yamano. How Can Micro-Level Household Information Make a Difference for Agricultural Policy Making?, A paper presented as a part of the Kenya Agricultural Marketing and Policy Analysis Project, TIAPD-Egerton University, KARI and Michigan State University. Biotechnology Trust Africa (BTA) (2001). Guidelines for Tissue Culture Banana Cultivation, Nairobi, pp. 1–6. Biotechnology Trust Africa (BTA)(2002), Annual Report 1998–2000, Nairobi, pp. 1–87. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) (2005). Science for Agricultural Development: Changing Contexts and New Opportunities, Science Council, CGIAR, Rome, pp. 1–54. Dijkstra, T. (1999). Horticultural Marketing in Kenya: Why Potato Farmers Need Collecting Wholesalers, in H. Laurens van der Laan, H.T. Dijkstra and Aad van Tilburg (eds), Agricultural Marketing in Tropical Africa, Contributions from Netherlands, African Studies Centre, Research Series 15/1999. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (1994). Special Program for Food Security (SPFS) in Low Income Food Deficit Countries, Rome Italy. Kahangi, E.M (1996). Biotechnology to Benefit Small-Scale Banana Producers in Kenya, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology. Kahangi, E.M. (1999). RAPD Profiling of Some Banana (Musa Sp.) Varieties Selected by Small Scale Farmers in Kenya, in Wesonga et al, Proceedings of Second Horticultural Seminar on Sustainable Horticultural Production in the Tropics, JKUAT, August 6–9. Kahangi, E. (2002). Banana Tissue Culture Project Implemented by Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Report of Biotechnology Trust Africa for 1998–2000, Nairobi. Kahangi, E.M.(2003). Deployment of Micro Propagation and Clean Planting Materials, in African Agricultural Technology Foundation Report of Small Group Meeting on Improved Production of Bananas and Plantains in Sub-Saharan Africa, Kampala (Uganda), August 22.

Socio-economic impact assessment of the tissue culture banana industry in Kenya

TC_banana_for Web.indd 30

8/21/2008 9:30:00 PM

Karembu, M.G. (1999). Small Scale Farmers’ Adoptive Responses to Banana Biotechnology in Kenya: Implications for Policy, Agricultural Technology Policy Studies (ATPS), Final Report (Unpublished). Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) (2003). NHRC (National Horticulture Research Centre) Annual Report 2003, Thika. Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) (2005), A Strategic Plan for the Period 2005–15, June, pp. 1–40. Mathenge M. and D. Tschirley (2006). Seasonal Analysis of Selected Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Prices at Wholesale Level in Key Urban Markets of Kenya, TIAPD-Egerton University, Working Paper No. 22, May, pp. 1–21. Mbogoh S.G., F.M. Wambugu, and S. Wakhusama (2002). Socio-Economic Impact of Biotechnology Applications: Some Lessons from the Pilot Tissue-Culture (TC) Banana Production Promotion Project in Kenya, 1997–2002, A Paper for XXV IAAE Conference (Durban, South Africa), October, pp. 1–14. Mbogoh S., F. Wambugu and C. Gichuki (2004). Socio-Economic Characterization of Existing and Potential Tissue Culture Banana Producers and the Economics of T-C Banana Production in Kenya, AHBFI, June, pp. 1–116. Ministry of Agriculture (2004). Strategy for Revitalizing Agriculture, 2004–2014, Republic of Kenya, pp. 1–116. Ministry of Agriculture (2005). Strategic Plan 2005–2009, Republic of Kenya, pp. 1–81. Ministry of Finance and Planning (2000), Welfare Monitoring Survey III, Second Report on Poverty in Kenya, Vol. I, Incidence and Depth of Poverty, Government of Kenya. Ministry of Local Authorities (1999a). Study Update on the Construction and Management of the New Nairobi Wholesale Market, Main and Final Report, Volume I, Prepared by JBG/AFC, Republic of Kenya, September, pp. 1–137. Ministry of Local Authorities (1999b). Study Update on the Construction and Management of the New Nairobi Wholesale Market, Volume II, Annexes, Final Draft, Republic of Kenya, June. Muendo K.M. and D. Tschirley (2004a). Improving Kenya’s Domestic Horticulture Production and Marketing System: Horticultural Production, Volume I, TIAPD-Egerton University, Working Paper No. 08/A, pp. 1–42. Muendo K.M. and D. Tschirley (2004b). Improving Kenya’s Domestic Horticulture Production and Marketing System: Current Competitiveness, Focus of Change and Challenges for the Future: Horticultural Research and Input Sector Regulation in Kenya and Tanzania, Volume III, TIAPD-Egerton University, Working Paper No. 08/C, pp. 1–24. Muyanga M., T.S. Jayne, G. Argwings-Kodhek and J. Ariga (2004/05). Staple Food Consumption Patterns in Urban Kenya: Trends and Policy Implications, TIAPD- Egerton University, Nairobi, Working Paper No. 16, pp. 1–23. Pender, J., F. Place and S. Ehui (Ed) (2006). Strategies for Sustainable Land Management in the East African Highlands, IFPRI, ICRAF, ILRI and the World Bank. Qaim, M. (1999a). Assessing the Impact of Banana Biotechnology in Kenya, ZEF, ISAAA, Briefs No. 10, ISAAA, Ithaca, NY, pp. 1–38. Qaim, M. (1999b). A Socioeconomic Outlook on Tissue Culture Technology in Kenyan Banana Production, Biotechnology and Development Monitor, No. 4, pp. 18–22. Research International Limited (Social and Public Research Division) and TechnoServe, Kenya (2006). From Producer to Retailer: Identifying Constraints in the Kenya Banana Market Chain, A Report, RI/5146, February, pp. 1–109. Rosegrant M.W., M.S. Paisner, S. Meijer and J. Witcover (2001). Global Food Projections To 2020: Emerging Trends and Alternative Futures, International Food Policy Research Institute, 2020 Vision, Washington. Smale M., S. Edmeades and H. De Groote (2006). Promising Crop Biotechnologies for Smallholder Farmers in East Africa: Bananas and Maize, Ed., Briefs, June, pp. 19–26. Super Sorghum (2006). Africa Biofortified Sorghum Project: Sowing Seeds for a Harvest of Hope, www.supersorghum.org, pp. 1–8. TechnoServe (2003). A Rapid Study of Banana Markets and Producer Groups’ Diagnostic in Central Kenya, December, pp. 1–35. TechnoServe (2004). A Rapid Study of Banana Markets and Producer Groups’ Diagnostic in Central Kenya, Final Report, Nairobi, March, pp. 1–35. TechnoServe (2005). Developing a Pro-Poor Tissue Culture Banana Industry in Kenya – Production to Market Pipeline and Banana Industry Model, May, pp. 1–13.

TC_banana_for Web.indd 31

8/21/2008 9:30:01 PM

TechnoServe (2006). Smallholder Banana Farmers from Maragua and Muranga Districts of Central Kenya, Welfare Monitoring Survey, Draft Report by Setpro Consult, February, pp. 1–95. Tee Cee Banana Enterprises Limited (Tee Cee BEL) (2006a). Company Profile and Business Plan, Revised, September, pp. 1–15. Tee Cee Banana Enterprises Limited (Tee Cee BEL) (2006b). The Concept of Commoditising the Banana Fruit, Revised Draft, September, pp. 1–6. Tschirley D., K.M. Muendo and M.T. Weber (2004). Improving Kenya’s Domestic Horticultural Production and Marketing System: Horticultural Marketing, Volume II, TIAPD-Egerton University, Working Paper No. 08/B, pp. 1–48. Wambugu F. (2006). Modifying Africa: How Biotechnology Can Benefit the Poor and Hungry – A Case Study from Kenya, II Edition, AHBFI, United States Division, www.modifyingafrica.org, pp. 1–78. Wambugu F.M. and R.M. Kiome (2001). The Benefits of Biotechnology for Small-Scale Banana Producers in Kenya, ISAAA Briefs No. 22, ISAAA, Ithaca, NY, pp. 1–34. Wambugu, Florence, M. Karembu, M. Njuguna and S.W. Wanyangu. Biotechnology to Benefit Small-scale Banana Producers in Kenya, Global Development Network, www.gdnet.org/pdf/909_Wambugu.pdf.

Socio-economic impact assessment of the tissue culture banana industry in Kenya

TC_banana_for Web.indd 32

8/21/2008 9:30:01 PM

APPENDIX IV Persons/Institutions contacted/interviewed for the study I. Government Officials (Including KARI, JKUAT and HCDA) (B) Ms Isabella G. Nkonge, District Agricultural Officer, Kiambu District, Kiambu. Ms Taresia W. Karanja, District Horticulture Officer, Kiambu District, Kiambu. Ms Lucy K. Murithi, Agriculture Officer, Kikuyu Division, District Kiambu. Mr Douglas Ndung’u, Crops Officer, Muncipality Division, Kiambu, District Kiambu. Mr Andrew K. Thuo, Crops Officer, Githunguri Division, District Kiambu. Dr L. Turoop, Head, Tissue Culture Laboratory and Department of Horticulture, JK University of Agriculture and Technology, Nairobi. Dr V. Kiragwa, Scientist, Horticulture Marketing, KARI, Nairobi. Dr J.G. Muthamia, Horticulturist, KARI-EMBU Centre, Embu. Agronomist, KARI-EMBU Centre, Embu. Horticulturist, Research Centre of KARI, Kakamega. Dr (Mrs) Momiah Waiganjo, Deputy Centre Director and Head, Crop Protection, KARI, Thika. Dr Benjamin Chege, PHT Scientist, KARI, Thika. Dr Jesca Njeri Mbaka, Plant Pathologist, KARI, Thika. Ms Beth Ndungu, Socio-Economist, KARI, Thika. Dr Francis Kori, Head of Horticulture, KARI, Thika. Dr Joseph Kibe, Chairman, Horticulture Crops Development Authority, Republic of Kenya.

II. Other Organizations Mr Paul Muchemi, Managing Director, ATL, Thika. Ms Pauline Maina, Manager, Extension Program, Wangu Investment. Mr Robert Mathu, Director (Board), Tee Cee Banana Enterprises Limited, Wangige, District – Kiambu. Mr Dedan Kamtu, Quality Control Manager, Tee Cee BEL. Mr Steven Sagina, Incharge, Nursery Management, Tee Cee BEL. Ms Violet Wainaina, Assistant (Marketing), Tee Cee BEL. Dr Kinkori, Genetics Technologies International Limited, Nairobi. Dr Erastus Kibugu, Head of Horticulture (Kenya and Uganda) TechnoServe, Nairobi. Dr Steve Harris, Market Linkages Specialist (UK-Based), TechnoServe, Nairobi. Dr Henry Kinyua, Senior Business Advisor – Horticulture, TechnoServe, Nairobi. Mr Georges Mugambi, Marketing Manager, Organic Solutions Limited, Nairobi. Mr J.M. Wekundah, Executive Director, Biotechnology Trust Africa, Nairobi. Mr Tetsuya Yoshimura, EM Research Organization (Japan), Partner with Organic Solutions Limited, Nairobi. Mr Hannington Odame, Executive Director, Centre for African Bio-entrepreneurship, Nairobi.

TC_banana_for Web.indd 33

8/21/2008 9:30:01 PM

III. Farmers/Farm Women (B) Mrs Esther Gachugu, Farmer and Leader of Karindundu Farmers’ Group, Village Maragi, District Muranga. Ms Frashia, Lady Farmer, Village Maragi, District Muranga. Mr Robert Njuguna, Farmer, Wangige, District Kiambu. Mr George Machara, Chairman, Farmers’ Group, Chura Village (Chura Main Group – Enemies of Hunger). Mr Simon Munguo, Secretary, Farmers’ Group, Chura Village. Mr Benjamin, Chairman, Gakinduri Farmers’ Group, Chura Village. Mr James K. Kungu, Farmer and Trainer of farmers. Mr John M. Muthame, Farmer. Mr Edward Wakaba, Chairman, Farmers’ Group. Ms Alice Kunoba, Lady Farmer, Chura. Ms Lucy Manchau , Lady Farmer, Chura. Ms Nari Mongi, Lady Farmer, Chura. Mr Catherine Njeri, Treasurer, Ngararia Umojo SHG, District Maragua. Mr John Mwaniki Sitan, Secretary, Rumangaga SHG, District Maragua. Mr David Karanja Mwangi, Chairman, Ngararia Umojo SHG, District Maragua. Ms Julius Njoroge, Vice Chair, Farmers’ SH Group, Ngararia Umojo. Mr James Muiruri Mburu, Chairman, Saba Saba SHG, District Maragua. Mr Duncan Kimani Munene, Farmer, Kamahula Group, District Maragua. Mr Edward Kimuhu, Secretary, Kamahula SHG, District Maragua. Mr Antony Mwangi, Chairman, Punda Milia Murika Banana Growers’ Group, District Maragua. Mr Patick Kabaria, Grader and Farmer, Punda Milia Murika Group, District Maragua. Mr Francis Mburu, Treasurer, Kamahula Group, District Maragua. Mr Felister Mathoni, Secretary, Ngararia Umojo SHG. Mr Wilson Muiruri Njuguna, Vice Chairman, Githunguri Self-Help Group, District Maragua. Dr Joseph Kibe, Chairman, Horticulture Crops’ Development Authority, Republic of Kenya. Ms Njoki Wainaina, Entrepreneur, Kiburi Food Processor, District Thika.

IV. African Harvest Biotechnology Foundation International (B) Dr (Mrs) Florence Wambugu, CEO. Dr Michael Njuguna, Director, Finance, Administration and Business Development, Acting Deputy CEO. Dr Joseph Kibe, Director, Treasurer and Member of Board of Management. Dr Mwamburi Mcharo, Program Leader. Ms Victoria Ndungu, Team Leader, Field Team. Mr James Kiragu, Field Officer, AHBFI and Manager, TeeCee BEL. Ms Wangari Mbuthia, Field Officer. Ms Jane Ndiritu, Field Officer. Ms Naomi Kimani, Intern, IT Department. Ms Merita Mukami Machaki, Intern, TC Banana.

Socio-economic impact assessment of the tissue culture banana industry in Kenya

TC_banana_for Web.indd 34

8/21/2008 9:30:01 PM

APPENDIX V BIOS OF REVIEWERS

Shabd S. Acharya Dr. Shabd Swaroop Acharya is presently (2008) Honorary Professor, Institute of Development Studies, Jaipur, India. He was earlier its Director for more than 7 years. Dr. Acharya has contributed immensely to the field of agricultural economics and agricultural policies in developing countries of Asia. Apart from reorienting the agricultural price policies in India, he effectively demonstrated that even in a liberalized economic environment, price support for farmers and some degree of market intervention for agriculture would be extremely important. Dr. Acharya laid a solid foundation of agricultural economics teaching and research at the Rajasthan Agricultural University. He was awarded Professorial Chair of National Fellow by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, worked as Project Director (IRD) in the Special Schemes Organization of the Government of Rajasthan and earlier, as Agricultural Extension Officer. He has been consultant to FAO; UNDP; ILO and the World Bank; Leader of FAO Mission on Agricultural Policies for East Timor and member of UNDP Mission on agricultural development and poverty reduction in East Timor. He has been a member of Scientific Panel of Science Council of CGIAR from 2004 to 2006. He has written extensively in the area of agricultural economics, development and policy. He has, to his credit, 11 books; and several chapters, research monographs and reports, and research papers and articles. In recognition of his contributions in agricultural and rural development, he has been conferred several awards and honours at the national and international levels. Mary Alton Mackey Dr. Mary Alton Mackey is an international consultant in food and nutrition and a professional dietician providing educational and consultant services in foods, clinical and normal nutrition and food service management in Canada and internationally. She has been a faculty member at McGill University, worked with Memorial University in Newfoundland, with the Ontario Ministry of Health and internationally with Makerere University in Kampala and with the Ugandan government, the Government of Pakistan’s Ministry of Health, the Government of Kuwait’s Ministry of Health, UNICEF in Pakistan and for CIDA in Bangladesh as well as with the private sector in Zambia. She has also conducted evaluations of international health and nutrition interventions and has been a consultant with the World Health Organization. Dr. Alton Mackey has been actively following the development of food biotechnology since 1993. She has served as the Chair of the Food Committee for the Consumers Association of Canada. Dr. Alton Mackey continues to be active with the Consumer Interest Alliance Inc. and has conducted several consumer research projects. She is a member of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Council for Food and Nutrition and is a frequent speaker on food biotechnology, both to professional groups and organizations, as well as to consumers. She has led a round table at the pre-conference workshop on Food Security at the World Congress International Federation of Home Economics in Ghana. She was a guest speaker at the Dieticians of Canada meeting on Biotechnology and Heart Health – Opportunities and Challenges. Dr. Alton Mackey continues to be active internationally in the area of food security.

TC_banana_for Web.indd 35

8/21/2008 9:30:02 PM

Zipporah Muchai shows off her TC banana fruit that is almost ready for harvest

TC_banana_for Web.indd 36

8/21/2008 9:30:03 PM

w w w. a f r i c a h a r v e s t . o rg

ISBN 978-0-620-41753-2

NAIROBI (HQ) 3rd Floor, Whitefield Place, School Lane, Westlands PO Box 642 Village Market 00621 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: + 254 20 444 1113 Fax: + 254 20 444 1121 Email: kenya@africaharvest.org

TC_banana_for Web.indd 37

JOHANNESBURG Fernridge Office Park 5 Hunter Street, Randburg PO Box 3655 Pinegowrie 2123 Gauteng, South Africa Tel: + 27 11 781 4447 Fax: + 27 11 886 0152 Email: southafrica@africaharvest.org

WASHINGTON DC Blake Building Farragut Square 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 1012 Washington DC 20036, USA Tel: +1 202 828 1215 Fax: +1 202 857 9799 37 E-mail: usa@africaharvest.org

8/21/2008 9:30:04 PM